Saturday, March 9, 2024

January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard




Liz Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Top Takeaways:

A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion before the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.

Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”  Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity.

Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.

Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. “So then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Read the full article below:

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554985/Liz-Cheney-secretly-orchestrated-Washington-Post-op-ed-ten-living-former-Defense-Secretaries.html

 

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/3b713ae6-5426-4d5c-9853-b19fcb7d75a5/7AA2E4D00C62DE8F036EE90481BC8EE2.ornato-ti.pdf

Friday, March 8, 2024

VERIFYING claims from President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address

President Joe Biden delivered his third State of the Union address to a split Congress on Thursday, March 7, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate. 

Biden touched on the Israel-Hamas war, the nation’s economy and healthcare, among other issues.

Following Biden’s address, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, the youngest Republican woman elected to the Senate, delivered a response for the GOP.

The VERIFY team fact-checked claims from Biden’s address and the GOP response. 

THE CLAIM

President Biden: “Inflation has dropped from 9% to 3%, the lowest in the world.”

THE SOURCES

Inflation rates have indeed dropped from 9.1% to 3.1% in the United States, which is among the lowest in the world. However several countries have lower rates.

WHAT WE FOUND

In June 2022, the annual inflation rate in the United States was 9.1%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The most recent inflation number, from January 2024, shows that annual rate has fallen to 3.1%.

Data from multiple sources show that number is lower than in much of the world, including some other major powers. The United Kingdom, for instance, reported a 4.2% inflation rate in January 2024.

However, several countries – including major powers – reported lower inflation rates. Canada, for instance, reported 2.9% inflation in January.

Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts newsletter here

THE CLAIM

President Biden: “Former President [Trump] told Putin, ‘Do whatever you want.’”

THE SOURCES

YouTube video published by WMBF News of Former President Trump’s South Carolina rally on Feb. 10, 2024

THE ANSWER

This is true.

Trump said at a February rally that he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” when discussing  NATO countries that don’t pay enough for defence. 

WHAT WE FOUND

Former President Donald Trump said during a rally in Conway, South Carolina, on Feb. 10 that, while he was president, he warned NATO allies that he “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent.”

Trump told a story at the rally about an unidentified leader of a NATO country who asked him whether the U.S. would defend member countries against Russia if they don’t pay enough for defence.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent.’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”


THE CLAIM

Biden: “The Alabama Supreme Court shut down IVF treatments across the state.”  

THE SOURCES

THE ANSWER

This is false.

No, Alabama did not shut down IVF treatments across the state.

WHAT WE FOUND

On Feb. 16, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. The ruling did not make IVF treatments illegal in the state, University of Arkansas law professor and reproductive rights expert Jill Lens and Katie O’Connor, director of federal abortion policy at the National Women’s Law Center told VERIFY. 

While the ruling did not ban IVF treatments, it could have made them difficult to access. 

Facing pressure to get IVF services restarted in the state, on March 6 Alabama’s governor signed legislation into law shielding doctors from potential legal liability raised by the court ruling.


View all @ https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-verify/verifying-claims-from-president-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union-address-republican-rebuttal/536-f3bb25fd-04e9-465a-bf10-59bac88ba744


Saturday, February 24, 2024

Keeping Democracy Alive 2024


Most left-leaning academia like Hedges are left-wing ideologists and hold the belief, that democracy of the free-market system and capitalism is dysfunctional and has no proper competition with reasonable rules, but what are his alternative suggestions for proper completion and reasonable rules that are required under his ideals and theories of spiritual enlightenment for a socialist utopian collective community based on wealth distribution?


On a pragmatic and philosophical ground, the important point is that the pursuit of happiness is on an individual basis, not a collective right, as my dreams are different from yours and someone else’s is completely different from both of ours.


For example, the political holy grail of progressive socialized liberalism and some feminists is that the government should control, and taxpayers should fund childcare, daycare and cradle-to-grave benefits. Others hold the opinion that it is not the children who require liberating from the family but perhaps the mother should be liberated from the child. It is not only the fathers who are supposed to guide their youth but the mothers, fathers and grandparents of their offspring who are directly responsible for the youth of today and their upbringing, not governments or political parties.


The responsibility for sheltering, raising, feeding, and clothing is the direct responsibility of those who decide to conceive or adopt a child. 

Government-run hand-out programs and mass social herding formulas for housing, rent, childcare and unsustainable subsidies or socialism/communism is not the answer as history has shown.

It is however a worldwide failure and has done nothing other than create ghettos of segregated warehouses of poor people living in misery.


For myself, I believe, any fair-minded individual would not dispute the political reality that today the core agenda of progressive domestic social liberalism relates to the support for a welfare state, abortion and the racial identity politics of multiculturalism-based redistribution of wealth through class warfare and the concept of open borders.


An unmanageable national debt aggravated by spending and borrowing for unsustainable entitlements and handouts has both caused and exacerbated the burden of an inequitable system of taxation whereby 10% of the US population pays 80% of all taxes and 43% of Americans account for 20% of paid federal taxes while 47% of the US population pay NO federal taxes?


Thus, the so-called wealthy in the US already pay the brunt of taxes while 47% pay no taxes. In Canada, 33.4% of citizens pay less than $2 in federal taxes. Therefore 66.6% of Canadians are subsidizing 33.4% of the population. A fair share, in Canada and the US, should mean that all citizens pay an equal amount of taxes as opposed to paying NO federal taxes at all.


Any mischief, based on an excessive desire to acquire and possess more than what one needs or even deserves especially for material wealth, did not originate from nor is it limited to that of the Wall Street or Bay Streets of the world. It all began with the greed of Union leaders as well as their members be it auto workers, teachers, hospital workers, government employees, political appointees’ etc. along with politicians; corporations and the shareholders of publicity traded companies. Such firms and organizations also represent companies in the resource development sector for green energy solutions and other special interest groups publicly traded around the globe.


Because of our now excessive and numerous government regulations and attempts to micromanage the free enterprise system through government controls and outright nationalizations of industries or corporations combined with excess wage, benefit and pension demands by all guilty parties’ businesses go to China, India, South America, and other countries around the world to find a less expensive workforce and less government.


Unfortunately, the leaders today, be they politicians or union leaders, seem far more concerned with raising political donations or union dues through new members for their re-elections and play fast and furious with our money for their success and prosperity at the expense of those who actual pay taxes or union dues.


It is not only individuals like Hughes who feel they are entitled to receive handouts from others or the wealthy.


It’s politicians, academia, artists, academics, students, bureaucrats, corporations, unions, special interest groups, it`s your neighbours and those that pay little or no federal income taxes all of whom fanatically believe they are entitled to their entitlements at other people’s expense.


This is not freedom or democracy but a resurgence of progressive totalitarian socialized liberalism. If anything, occupying pressure groups protesting the Wall Streets or Bay Streets of the world or individual achievements and wealth without any pronounced alternatives suggest anarchy. Perhaps as most academics preach, they wish for a return to Fascism, Maoism, Maoism, Communism or 21st-century totalitarian socialism.


History has documented for us all that unexpected power by revolutions throughout the world are prone to arrogance, disrespect, intrusive, and short-lived freedoms for the people at the expense of law and order, liberties and freedoms. For example, the French Revolution, given the benefit of history, "it's difficult to understand why anyone doubts the fascist nature of that revolution. It was totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial and populist.


And it produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre, and Napoleon. The paranoid Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and crueller than the king they replaced. Over fifty thousand people died in the terror of that revolution."


The Russian Revolution and its later day revolutionary leaders were responsible for the deaths of more than 40 MILLION people in the name of that revolution.


The Chinese Revolution under Mao saw over 65 MILLION people killed in the name of that revolution. The Cuban revolution saw close to 50 thousand kicked, tortured, and terrorized and thousands of political prisoners remain in jail for daring to speak up against Castro and his brother.


Unfortunately, today’s elected career politicians and bureaucrats within this new world consist mostly of blame passers who never take responsibility or come to grips with their refusal to stand up and be held accountable.

Money left in the hands of taxpayers is far more productive than putting it in the hands of career politicians, special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats.


Democracy yes, yet anarchy, class warfare and revolutions have been shown to destroy freedom; liberties and countries not build them.

Friday, February 23, 2024

Quebec's Language Bill 96 and Others All Unconstitutional




When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Quebec's language Bill 96 is deemed unconstitutional, and the Prime Minister must invoke the disallowance power, an integral aspect of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

When will we see a political party and its leaders with the wisdom and courage to defend Canada and its citizens by utilizing the disallowance power entrenched in the existing Canadian Constitution? This power, enshrined in the Constitution Act, of 1867, remains vital for safeguarding minority rights and preventing the enactment of discriminatory laws by provincial governments, such as Quebec’s Bill 96.

It is a fundamental principle that provisions within the Constitution retain their legal force regardless of whether they are frequently exercised. They persist until modified through the prescribed Canadian Constitution amendment procedures, not through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

While scholars may engage in academic discourse about the legitimacy of constitutional powers that lie dormant, it is essential to recognize that such discussions do not alter the constitutional framework itself. The disallowance power, explicitly outlined in the Constitution Act of 1867, remains valid unless formally renounced through established conventions.

As no Prime Minister has officially declared the disallowance power obsolete, it retains its legal validity as a crucial component of Canada's constitutional framework. Therefore, it can and should be employed to ensure all provinces adhere to the principles outlined in the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Moreover, debates among academics concerning whether a constitutional convention can nullify a written law present complex legal questions. It is challenging to argue that a lack of exercise could invalidate a constitutionally established power, particularly given legal precedents such as the 1990 court ruling that upheld the appointment of eight additional senators, despite the previously unused section of the Constitution Act of 1867 being invoked.

Background:

1.        https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2.      https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

 


 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

New York Executive Law § 63(12) Felonious?

 


In challenging the constitutionality of New York Executive Law § 63(12), several aspects of substantive due process should be implicated.

Privacy Rights: If the law infringes upon individuals' fundamental right to privacy without a compelling government interest and lacks narrow tailoring, it conceivably raises substantive due process concerns.

For instance, if it enables the Attorney General to target individuals or businesses without adequate justification, privacy rights are at risk.

Property Rights: Substantive due process safeguards property rights by demanding that government actions affecting property be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If the law permits the Attorney General to pursue injunctions or remedies against individuals or businesses without due justification, it might infringe upon property rights and thus be subject to challenge.

Liberty Interests: Substantive due process protects against arbitrary or unreasonable government interference with individual liberty interests. If the law excessively restricts individuals' lawful business activities or encroaches upon their liberty without sufficient justification, it conceivably faces challenges on substantive due process grounds.

Overbreadth and Vagueness: Substantive due process mandates that laws be clear and narrowly tailored to their intended purposes. Should New York Executive Law § 63(12) contain overly vague or broad language, or if it criminalizes constitutionally protected conduct to a significant degree, substantive due process concerns conceivably arise. If the language of the law is overly vague or broad, it could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and thus violate the principles of due process. Additionally, if the law sweeps too broadly and criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it might be considered overbroad.

Additionally, concerning excessive fines, laws or actions imposing penalties disproportionate to the offence committed can be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. 

Cases such as United States v. Bajakajian (1998), Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), Austin v. United States (1993), and Timbs v. Indiana (2019) illustrate how the Supreme Court has addressed such issues, underscoring the principle that fines must not be grossly disproportionate to the offence and that property cannot be confiscated without due process of law.

In addition, the New York Executive Law § 63(12) could be considered unconstitutional depending on various factors, including how it is applied and interpreted in practice, and whether it conflicts with constitutional provisions or principles. Here are some potential areas where constitutional concerns might arise:

Due Process: The law allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions and other remedies against individuals or businesses engaging in fraudulent or illegal acts. In applying such remedies, it's essential to ensure that affected parties receive due process rights, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

First Amendment: If the law restricts speech or expression in a manner that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, it could raise First Amendment concerns. For example, if the law is used to target protected speech or political expression, it might be subject to challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Equal Protection: The law must be applied in a manner that does not discriminate against individuals or groups based on improper classifications such as race, gender, or religion. Unequal treatment in enforcing the law could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Powers: Depending on how the law interacts with the powers of other branches of government, particularly the judiciary, concerns about separation of powers might arise. If the law grants the Attorney General excessive discretion or authority without sufficient oversight, it could raise separation of powers issues.

State Constitutional Concerns: It's also possible that the law could be challenged under the New York State Constitution, which may provide additional protections or impose different requirements compared to the U.S. Constitution.

The "general principle of proportionality" is a legal doctrine often applied in various contexts, including constitutional law and international law. It essentially states that any government action or restriction on individual rights must be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. 

In other words, the means used by the government should not exceed what is necessary to accomplish its objectives and was this case brought against the former US President by a political hatchet job by one political party member seeking a higher public office?